It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have New Scientific Discoveries Made A Believer Of You?

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

as you are clearly replying to your own fantasies - not what i actually say < snip > you i CBA with this any more




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.


That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.



As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.


It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.

Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.

Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.

Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.

So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.


Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?

You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?

There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.


I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space


We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"

Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.


That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.



As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.


It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.

Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.

Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.

Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.

So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.


Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?

You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?

There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.


I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space


We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"

Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.


Really? Who?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.


That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.



As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.


It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.

Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.

Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.

Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.

So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.


Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?

You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?

There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.


I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space


We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"

Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.


Really? Who?
en.wikipedia.org...

coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com...

Besides on a side note e = mc2 completely refutes GR



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.


That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.



As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.


It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.

Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.

Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.

Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.

So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.


Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?

You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?

There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.


I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space


We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"

Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.


Really? Who?
en.wikipedia.org...

coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com...


You said many scientists and instead point me to a blog which is full of error, misunderstanding and looks written like someone who doesn't understand the experiment.

I was expecting something a bit stronger than that, like published peer-reviewed papers on ArXiv or elsewhere.

I've read the paper from the Gravity Probe B team in Physical Review and their methodology was sound.

If it wasn't there would be plenty of counter papers pointing out flaws, alleging the experiment didn't prove frame dragging or the geodetic effect and suggesting new/better experiments. The physics community is highly competitive like that. I did a search for such papers refuting the Gravity Probe B papers and didn't find any. Can you?

Instead all I received was a wordpress.com blog.

And from the wikipedia link you posted, it concludes:


The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[30] The findings were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.;[7] the prospects for further experimental measurement of frame-dragging after GP-B were commented on in the journal Europhysics Letters.[31]




Besides on a side note e = mc2 completely refutes GR


Now you're just talking nonsense.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

First link :

The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.


Second link:

To be sure, the Gravity Probe B experiment is a fantastic achievement that offers spectacular evidence in support of two distinct predictions of the general theory of relativity.
...
However, your headline is problematic for anyone with a knowledge of the scientific method or an interest in the philosophy of science.

The authors is concerned about the way the results are portrayed in the media, but not about the experiment itself.

???



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18809923]JadeStar



Besides on a side note e = mc2 completely refutes GR


Now you're just talking nonsense.
Really ?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Read fully on the 2 links. You are just cherry picking what suits GR
a reply to: moebius



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Hmm.
To answer original question:

I was never a non-believer so it didnt


I'd like to thank the scientists here (both proffesionals and amateurs) and informed ppl who took their time to provide great explanations for GPB mission and its findings.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
No, in fact, it has made me further doubt the already vanishing possibility of them getting her from there. For that to be the case, they'd need some kind of FTL. For FTL to be possible, major deviations need to be found in either general relativity (GR) or the standard model (SR). The fact that recent observational experiments continue to verify old predictions of GR, and that the higgs-boson that was found exactly matches the characteristics predicted by the SR, means that rapid interstellar travel will exist only in video games or in Hollywood. GR and the SR are just so frustratingly accurate. I'm also not a believer in the likelihood of relativistic space travel. The problems are so enormous and numerous that one could exhaust entire ATS posts just listing them. You also can't sustain any type of interstellar civilization or trade with STL, relativistic travel.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
But of course any predictions will be true, if the results of any expt. are interpreted to suit those predictions.
a reply to: Diablos




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The photos of Mars structures shown in another thread are enough to make a believer out of me.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: rigel4


I have always believed in life out there.. it's
(statistical certainty)

Just so happens that it is also a mathematical certainty!


You are wrong on both counts im afraid, it is neither a statistical or mathematical certainty.

Before you start quoting the drake equation parrot fashion you might want to read and understand it correctly.



I didn't quote the Drake equation ... fool
Maybe you would like to explain to me why life in the Cosmos
is NOT a mathematical certainty.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: rigel4


I have always believed in life out there.. it's
(statistical certainty)

Just so happens that it is also a mathematical certainty!


You are wrong on both counts im afraid, it is neither a statistical or mathematical certainty.

Before you start quoting the drake equation parrot fashion you might want to read and understand it correctly.



I didn't quote the Drake equation ... fool


fool? lol what are you mr T?


Quite simply its a statistical uncertainty until proven otherwise, the onus of proof is on you. Please show me your proof of why you insist life is a statistical or mathematical certainty then. Specifically show me the maths that you are using in your claim if it was not the drake equation you were referring to.



edit on 31-12-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
The photos of Mars structures shown in another thread are enough to make a believer out of me.



Well that was easy.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I think scientific discoveries have made it perfectly plausible for Intelligent Life to be visiting Earth. One day,when super advanced telescopes are launched, it is plausible we will discover an advanced civilization on an Earth-like exo-planet. The research from studying extremophiles on Earth aides in astro-biology research. We are conducting tests of faster than light travel, teleportation, tiny big bangs, tiny black holes, anti-gravity, cloaking, etc...Upon discovering an advanced civilization, we may discover one with technology far far more advanced than our own.

If you consider the above scenario, then of course we've been visited. The obvious scenarios:

1. They came in our Ancient Past

2. We are deemed non-intelligent, therefor no communication or contact.

3. They have been sighted since the 40's

4. They jump in and out of our dimension, therefor undetectable.

Not

5. We have never been visited.

Sorry I truly believe the naysayers are also the ones who think there are strong odds of us discovering Intelligent Life, and there must be a method of traveling the Stars, one day we will find out how. At the same time the same group thinks we've never been visited. This is because they refute any tall tales of a UFO sighting, Alien Abduction, or Government Cover-Up.

In the scenario of peaceful Intelligent Life landing on Earth and giving us gifts, they would have to be a pretty Earth-Like group of Extraterrestrial Beings!!! They would also be extremely brave! This scenario is unlikely because Intelligent Life could have very very strange and completely different cultural universals than ours.

Now why hasn't Earth been invaded by violent Intelligent Beings wanting to blast and destroy us? That is a good question.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Titor86

No scientific discovery is going to result in a positive for life outside of planet Earth. There is nothing to support it aside from wishers and those who see a benefit in coming up with formulas that start with zero.

For the time being we are it in all of creation.

What about ETs you say? No evidence for their existence either, just tall tales from believers.

By you saying you believe that there's other human-like life, nothing is gained 'cause a belief is a mental creation. In here (points to head) but not out there.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join